Just as I’m sure General Patraeus would never question Oliver’s strategy for eating 10 cheeseburgers in a single sitting, Oliver should probably keep his thoughts on warfare strategy to himself.

hahah! That made me swallow my coffee down the wrong hole!

Left by kw on July 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am

Yeah, only people who’ve passed a military physical, or who could pass one, have the right to offer an opinion on the war.

Like, er, Dick Cheney?

Left by Steve M. on July 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am

Dear Steve — is your reading comprehension ability that low, or did you just not read to the end?

I fully acknowledged that the fat-fuck has all the right to criticize.

But he’s gone beyond criticism. He’s playing armchair general; he’s calling a highly decorated and highly regarded General — a man who is in Iraq constantly, talking to the troops, talking to the Iraqis, and witnessing the war in person — a liar about his actions and their results. He’s calling this honorable man a shill.

And in doing so, Oliver-the-military-hating-fat-fuck is suggesting — from the far-way, I-couldn’t-even-find-Iraq-on-a-glob-with-my-sausage-like-fingers safety of his (or his mom’s) living room, that he knows more about what’s going on in Iraq (and whether or not the surge or our other military efforts in Iraq are or can be successful) than a career military man.

To which I simply called bullshit.

And responded that the fat-fuck probably knows more about all-you-can-eat buffets than he knows about anything to do with the military (other than he hates it with all of his jiggly belly). I’ll leave the slothfulness to Oliver, and I’ll leave the war fighting to the men.

If you believe that General Patraeus is fair game for criticism, then surely you’re not so much of a hypocrite to think Oliver isn’t?

Are you?

Left by Robbie on July 19th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

“This guy who I can only assume has neither the heart nor the courage to have ever served himself”

Yeah, Hugh Hewitt, first on the beach at Anzio. Do you really want to go there?

Left by Bob on July 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I think I like this new criteria of yours. Lets see if we can apply it:

“Ronald Reagan — perhaps the greatest politicians in our country’s history ”

Dodged the draft and sat out WWII hiding under the covers. Well we needed somebody to man the home front. I think the official excuse was “unfit for service”.

” Ted Kennedy — perhaps the worst man ever to be elected to political office ”

Volunteered and served in the military.

Hmmmmm. I like this game.

Left by Bob on July 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I would add something here, but “Left By Bob” has adequately hoisted you on your petard.

Left by Oliver Willis on July 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Mr. Willis:

I wasn’t aware of your blog until Robbie linked to it. Now that I’ve read it, I like it and I will start to read it regularly.

Left by Bob on July 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Bob — you’re an idiot if you believe that about Reagan.

Ronald Reagan was a Captain in the U.S. Army:

Reagan enrolled in a series of home-study Army Extension Courses on March 18, 1935. After completing 14 of them, he enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a Private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa.[14] He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937. On June 18 of that year Reagan, who had recently moved to Los Angeles to begin his film career, was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.[15]

Having served for about five years in the Army Reserve, Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.

So, your “draft dodger” comment is bunk — you must have confused Reagan with Clinton.

And since I’ve had my turn in the sandbox already Bob, Fuck Yeah I wanna go there. Won’t you share which units, where, and when you served your country? And if you didn’t…which excuse do you usually use as to why not?

Besides, you’re setting up a strawman with Hewitt. Hewitt wasn’t armchair general-ing the war like your new Buddha-esque blog god was — Hugh was merely interviewing a great military man.

Ollie’s contention wasn’t with Hewitt — it was with General Patraues.

I’ll sit here and argue the merits of killing al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq all day. It’s easy against men who’ve no real conviction, experience, or true sacrifice to their country.

I’m more proud of having served my country than anything else I’ve ever done, and I think less of any man who has never served (who was physically or mentally capable of it). And I think an order of magnitude less of those cowards who would criticize those who do serve but have never had the balls, the integrity, or the honor to have served themselves.

_________

As for Kennedy — the two years he spent in the US Army in Paris are the two most (and quite possibly only) honorable years in that man’s entire life. The rest have been a sham.

Left by Robbie on July 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I would add something here, but “Left By Bob” has adequately hoisted you on your petard.

I just called you a coward and a fat piece of shit, and that’s the best you can do?

You let some guy named “Bob” — who can’t even distinguish between Cpt. (U.S. Army) Ronald Reagan’s 5-years of military service and Bill Clinton’s draft dodging — defend you?

I guess that’s about par for the course.

You’ve been content to let better men than yourself defend your freedoms without so much as lifting a finger other than to discredit and defame those very same men with your keyboard — so I shouldn’t be surprised that you let someone else defend you here too.

Left by Robbie on July 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

“Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.”

My uncle was nearsighted too. He’s buried over in Normandy. Come on buddy, it was WWII. “nearsighted ” ? Do you know how pathetic that is?

Hey Robbie, you really need to lighten up on the ad hominum stuff.
There are probably some open minded people out there who might consider what you say if you’d stick to the issues. Thanks for your service, but you need to make up for some missed education.

Less time on the range my friend, more time in the library.

Left by Bob on July 19th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

If you believe that General Patraeus is fair game for criticism, then surely you’re not so much of a hypocrite to think Oliver isn’t?

And what is it that exactly has you so worked up? Oliver Willis made the point that generals of the US Army probably shouldn’t be favoring right wing media. Why not just address that?

Your ad hominem flurry seems ludicrously out of proportion to his simple statement.

Left by Preston on July 20th, 2007 at 7:13 am

generals of the US Army probably shouldn’t be favoring right wing media

Oh, that’s right.

As we’ve already seen with the boycotting of Fox News from the Democratic Party, the left wants to control what is and what is not an acceptable source of news.

And they’ve made it abundantly clear that anything even hinting of “conservative” is to be banned and censored.

We have Senators, Congressmen, and myriad other politicians out there (to include former military men) who write blogs for radically left wing “news” blogs.

Would criticism from the right about a General agreeing to an interview on MSNBC’s Count Down be valid, as it would clearly be a case of the General “favoring” a left wing media?

Yeah. I didn’t think so.

Left by Robbie on July 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am

Per the ad hominem attacks on Willis — anybody who’s been around here long enough knows, these types of “arguments” are not my typical milieu.

As I know they do nothing to further one’s argument, and actually often result in you “losing” any argument you were trying to make.

But I’ve read enough of Ollie’s blog posts over the last year to know that he doesn’t exactly shy away from the personal invectives when aimed at the right.

And I don’t care about winning any arguments against the guy — that’s too easy, as he doesn’t make any valid points worth arguing against. I just think he’s a piece of shit — so my invective in this particular post isn’t just about the post of his I commented on; rather it’s a cumulation of everything I’ve ever read that he’s written.

Left by Robbie on July 20th, 2007 at 8:39 am

Right wing bloggers embracing the chicken hawk argument - I never thought I’d see the day. Every now and then I think you might be a side project of Jesus’ General - clever and devastating satire by a leftist with a direct line to the bizarre lunacies of a rightwing mind.

Left by Dan on July 20th, 2007 at 8:44 am

Dan — it makes me think you have no idea what the ChickenHawk meme actually means.

I have definitely not used it here. Again… for all those who didn’t fair so well on the Reading Comprehension section of their SATs:

I’m not — nor have I ever — said that only those who have served have the right to criticize the war. I don’t think you need to have been to Iraq or fought face-to-face with real terrorists to have a valid opinion of the war and how it’s being administered (though I think it adds a ton of weight and validity to that opinion).

What I am saying and continue to assert is that people who have no military training — have never served, have never lead troops in combat, have never attended the war college — yet still insist that they now more about military strategy and warfare than our country’s top Generals, officers, and Senior NCOs — well, they are out of their fucking minds.

For Ollie Willis to sit in his living room — having never so much as taken Basic Training — to assert that Gen. Patraeus is wrong about the surge working and that more time is needed to continue it — makes him an idiot and a blowhard.

Left by Robbie on July 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am

For a great deconstruction of the ChickenHawk meme as Liberals like to use it, read this great piece by Ace on the Ultimate ChickenHawk, Keith Olbermann.

Left by Robbie on July 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am

“Would criticism from the right about a General agreeing to an interview on MSNBC’s Count Down be valid, as it would clearly be a case of the General “favoring” a left wing media?”

If Patraeus had gone on a show which is as biased to the left as Hewitt is to the right, criticism of him would have been justified.
It is really important that Patraeus demonstrate impartial credibility.
For him to be so politically naive as to appear on such a show, whether it be biased to the left or the right, demonstrates serious misjudgment. For those of us who had hoped that we might get an impartial review of the situation free of politrical bias, this is very depressing.

Left by Bob on July 20th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Willis gave an opinion, and Robbie fired back. Fair enough.

I think it’s amazing that the dems who patted Petraeus on the back and wished him God speed at his appointment, are so fast to jump on the job the guy is doing. I’d challenge anyone to take on a job like Petraeus has…anybody…and see if they could produce even one positive result.

I hate this war, but by God give the guy a chance. He swore that if his plan wasn’t working, he’d tell us and i believe him.

Left by Dianne on July 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

While we are talking about liberal pieces of crap who didn’t serve but want to hold themselves out as morally and intellectually superior to those who have when it comes to the War in Iraq, let me link back to another one for you.

Left by Rhymes With Right on July 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

The fact that Willis’s point is even debatable is frightening. It used to be understood that in this country we had civilian control of the military. This has historically meant that active military did not engage in politics. By selectively appearing on right-wing radio programs without making himself available to left-wing blogs or radio Petraeus is effectively “engaging in politics”.

All of this criticism will be rendered premature if Petraeus indeed does appear on left-wing media yet if he doesn’t it will be a sad step undermining the confidence in the military that all Americans should share.

Left by Preston on July 20th, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Preston, I’m curious how you know that General Petraus “selectively” chose right-wing media? I’ve seen him on CNN at least once, hardly a conservative-rabid-at-the-mouth news outlet.

Part of Petraus’s strategy is to get the information out wherever he can. If that means appearing on a conservative radio show, then so be it. Same thing for appearing on a liberal news outlet.

Left by Nazar on July 20th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I simply mean he was being “selective” if he did not “select” liberal media outlets.

If you (and Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs and Tucker Carlson and company) believe that CNN counts as ‘liberal’ we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

However, as I alluded to, I would not be calling names as Willis did- I still think it’s possible that Petraeus has a visit to Daily Kos planned for the near future.

Left by Preston on July 20th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Preston, you made it appear as if Petraeus turned down an invitation from liberal news outlets of conservative media. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.

I certainly hope that Petraeus appears on Daily Kos. It’s important to get the message out to as many people as possible, especially those you disagree with (Democrats and FoxNews come to mind?). In other words, don’t preach to the converted!

Left by Nazar on July 20th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

We agree.

Left by Preston on July 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

We all agree that you are leftards, pressy. No argument there. Because only in your tiny little leftard minds, would you think Gen. Patraeus would appear on a forum that posted a photo of the burning bodies of dead American contractors with the label “Fuck them.” Thank you and your ilk for once again showing your true colors.

Left by kma on July 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm

KMA-
Do you really want to debate the relative offensiveness of liberal blogs v. the types of right-wing media outlets that the Vice President and the President of the United States frequent? (Aside from the obvious fact that blogs are allowed to use words that the FCC prohibits)

Left by Preston on July 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm

I just proved that you have lost your mind by proposing that you think Gen. Patraeus should appear on a blog who posted photos of the dead burning bodies of Americans hanging from a bridge with the caption of “Fuck Them.” That you pretend to ignore the obvious offensiveness of your idea just exposes you again for what you really are. You really are disgusting at times, pressy, but this takes the cake.

Left by kma on July 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm

i’m not sure disgusting is the correct label. i’m thinking preston’s issue is that he selectively ignores reality, but then quickly quotes stats and documented facts when they suit his needs!

Left by adam on July 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Unsurprisingly- you have mischaracterized the comment: there was no photo and he didn’t say “fuck them”. In any case I- along with much of the Daily Kos readership- rejected Markos’s choice of words to describe the contractors. Unlike, outlets such as Limbaugh and Fox News we were free to say so unedited.

Though he chose to state it crudely- because of his childhood in El Salvador amongst paramilitary groups and civil war?- the basic underlying point that military contracting is unconstrained by the military code of conduct remains true today.

All of this is beside the point- which is that Petraeus has thus far chosen a conservative outlet and not a liberal one for his appearances- consistent with the administration’s approach with politics over policy.

KMA- considering what’s said every day on right-wing media outlets- regularly patronized by Bush Administration representatives- I’d say your faux outrage is a little shrill to be believable.

Left by Preston on July 26th, 2007 at 6:28 am

I saw the photo and read the caption on Kos. There were also screenshots saved and posted on the internet.

I have never read that Hugh Hewitt put a photo of murdered Americans burning bodies hung from a bridge and personally captioned it “Fuck ‘em.” And my outrage for Kos doing that is real. Again, that you think it would be appropriate for Gen. Petraeus to associate himself with Kos shows how out of touch with reality you are.

Left by kma on July 26th, 2007 at 7:48 am

Ok — Kos said, “Screw ‘em” instead of “fuck ‘em”. Exact same meaning.

Are you going to be any less pissed off and outraged if I said “I screwed your wife like the cheap whore she is” instead of “I fucked your wife like the cheap whore she is”?

(note — that’s a theoretical “you”, and not anybody’s wife specifically)

Left by Robbie on July 26th, 2007 at 8:40 am

I don’t quite understand what it is about this comment by “Oliver Willis” that you find so objectionable. He merely voiced skepticism about any “surge”. He didn’t say anything too out of line.

And yes, you DID insinuate that someone who hasn’t been in the military, has no right to comment on the war.

Also you wrote: “I think less of any man who has never served (who was physically or mentally capable of it).” What a dumb thing to say. LOL what a sanctimonious prick.

You spent time in the military…hooray. We’re all impressed.

Left by Mike on November 21st, 2007 at 2:57 am

And that’s another thing–since you “think less” of any man who has never served, does that include Hugh Hewitt?

Left by Mike on November 21st, 2007 at 3:09 am

Ok, as someone who “served”, though not in Iraq, maybe I can weigh in here. Right-wingers don’t have a leg to stand on to whine about someone playing “armchair general”, we get plenty of that from right-wing pundits all the time. I have always been against this war, but I have had plenty of criticism for left-wingers who pull this kind of crap, particularly over that whole “lack of body-armor” fiasco, which was nothing but a distraction. I often pointed out to liberals that when I was in the army, we had enough trouble finding a servicable pad for the floor buffer- the idea that every soldier can have body armor, or that this will somehow prevent a lot of deaths, is simply ignorant. I remember reading a report telling how shrapnel from an IED managed to penetrate the main gun of an M1 Abrams. Good luck with the body armor.

But the idea that people who serve automatically have some kind of authority is also flawed. Afterall, rank and file soldiers are not able to view the strategic situation, nor are they able to get all the facts. Plus, militaries lie, period. Nobody wants to admit that they are losing; which is why the Germans dragged their ass reporting the defeat at Stalingrad and the Japanese hid the truth about the Battle of Midway, actually characterizing it as a victory for a while.

Since I assume that the author of this blog is a veteran, I suggest you read some of the US Army’s own publications about guerilla warfare, namely the chapter on OOTW in The Battle Book by Major John Sutherland(forgive me if I got the author’s name wrong, I have been separated from my personal library for over a year now). If you find the publication you will see that the longer an insurgency is active, the more chance of success it has. More importantly, guerillas on their home turf need not “win”, they only need to “not lose”. I would also refer you to the introduction to On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-Tung, which in the edition I had was written by General Samuel B. Griffith, USMC.

Left by Slavyanski on November 21st, 2007 at 3:41 am

Mike — yes. I do think more of a man if he has served. That doesn’t mean I can’t think very highly of him — only that I would think more of him had he served.

And just like many on the Left think less of people who served, I stand by my belief that those who served are collectively better people than those who have not.

And if that makes me a “sanctimonious prick”, well, I can live with it — because, once again — “for those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never enjoy”.

I hope you and yours have a happy and safe Thanksgiving this year. Please remember to stop and be thankful for the military personnel and the millions of Veterans who make that possible.

Left by Robbie on November 21st, 2007 at 8:55 am

Robbie, people who serve are no better than those who don’t. In the military you will find rapists, perverts, drug dealers, thieves, and other scumbags- in other words you find a cross-section of America. I met people who had a permanent impact on my perspective, and I also met a great number of people I wouldn’t want to cross paths with again. Romanticization of the military is a delusion, plain and simple.

As an amateur military historian and enthusiast of military strategy, it took me a while to look at the institution of the military, in its modern capitalist context, as it really is- separating the heroic deeds of individuals from the institution itself. What is relevant about the US military today, is that for almost a century, the US military has spent more time denying the freedom and independence of others than it has defending freedom for Americans or anyone(which it did in WWII). The idea that land-reformers in Central America, Marxists in South-East Asia, or Serbs in the disintegrating Yugoslavia constituted some kind of threat to the American way of life is simply laughable. You don’t believe it either, and you know it.

What the American people need, and what every nation needs, is an army of the people. If the broad masses in any nation were truly in power, in other words if we or any other nation had actualy democracy BY DEFINITION, the military and other institutions of state would be run in the interests of the masses. The US military, like virtually all others of the world today, is not run according to the interests of the masses. We the majority in charge, we would not have these bases around the world, separating families, creating markets for prostitution and human trafficking, and intimidating other peoples. We would not have countless wars and interventions like this one in Iraq. In addition to this, we would eliminate a lot of practices in the army that serve no practical purpose to the defense of the State. A lot of useless tradition would be thrown out, and the gap between officers, NCOs, and lower enlisted would be eliminated in favor of a service that is based on accomplishing its job- real national defense- as opposed to serving the interests of the national ruling class.

Ideally, a standing military would be eliminated, and the masses of people would be trained and armed to defend their own communities. Billions of dollars could be spent on programs that benefit all Americans, rather than on weapons that oppress foreigners.

I suppose you are a veteran, and I know that it is especially difficult for veterans, especially combat vets, to let go of the delusions about the military. But if you were courageous enough to sign up, courageous enough to potentially put your life on the line, you ought to be courageous enough to admit a painful truth about life today. Sometimes that’s the hardest thing to do.

Left by Slavyanski on November 21st, 2007 at 9:57 am